4 Salvador and one in San Miguel) […]; [a]ssign six mobile or personal guards (two per person); and provide a radio communication equipment within the Division frequency range in the case of Major Meléndez-Quijano. However, it is not possible to grant the petition regarding the allocation of tracing vehicles, as it does not have this type of vehicles;” e) the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (hereinafter “the Office of the Attorney General”) has started an investigation into the facts of the case through case files 276-UDAJ-2005 and 90-UDAJ-05. The last step was taken on September 11, 2007. The Office of the Attorney General “has assisted Major Meléndez-Quijano regarding the alleged violation of his rights, when he made a complaint for the crime of ‘Deprivation of Liberty by a Government Official or Employee, Public Agent or Authority.’” In view of this, the Office of the Attorney General concluded that the facts complained of did not constitute a crime, but “were the result of a Military offense which was codified and defined[,] whereby a military trial was started.” Due to the foregoing, Major Meléndez-Quijano “was deprived of his liberty, but under a thirty-day military arrest imposed as a sanction for the military offense committed.” In this regard, the Office of the Attorney General dismissed the complaint as it is not competent to hear cases involving facts, which do not constitute a crime. On the other hand, the investigation into the crime of attempted homicide against Eurípides MeléndezQuijano, started through case file 5635 UDV-05, is open. CONSIDERING: 1. That El Salvador has been a Member State to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since June 23, 1978 and that pursuant to Article 62 thereof, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, “[a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent. 3. That pursuant to Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, […] 2. With regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 6. The beneficiaries of provisional measures or urgent measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 4. That the provision contained in Article 63(2) of the Convention sets forth the obligation of the States to adopt the provisional measures ordered by this Court, as pursuant to the basic legal principle on the international responsibility of the State